TV Game Show Vault '12

[Blanquepage]

I can't monetize my videos on Youtube because I don't own the material.

But you're fine with monetizing them on your own site, even though you STILL don't own the material.

Don't ever change, man.

I honestly never thought that putting 3 ads on the site would be a problem in the 8 years it's been up; I accurately specified the website & content type before obtaining the ads and have never gotten any sort of TOS warnings for putting these ads on the site in the years that it's been up.

Of course I acknowledge that I don't own the material,  and make sure it states so on the site, nor would I make the mistake again of charging memberships for any portion of the site or for the content contained therein. I still figured that 3 ads were harmless to contribute to the bandwidth and hosting upkeep.
I'm not running this site to make a profit; that's why it's gone weeks or months without an update before this month.
I realize that the way I phrased it in response to Jimmy made it sound like that was a priority, but it's not. That was a mistake I made in the past.
It's just a personal preference of mine to want to continue enjoying working on a project I've built from scratch where I completely control every aspect of how these video files are presented, the look of them, don't have to worry about bandwidth limits, and don't have to break my own budget in the long run. The ads this past year covered the costs of the domain & bandwidth plus bought a couple of 16mm game show films to be shared on the site. Anything extra other than the bandwidth / hosting has gone directly to something directly relevant to the site itself.
 
If the ads are such a problem and so reprehensible after all these years, I'll remove them.

--Jamie

[TLEberle]

1) there were ads?

2) Every time I see one of the yinzers post "No copyright infringement intended," I roll my eyes because that's a golden flood of boolsh. Obviously they intend to violate the rights of the holder, else why would you upload the episode?

Here's the problem. You don't own the content. Even if the money you're getting is just to break even, it isn't your call to make. I think it is terrific that you're sharing these gems with us, but you seem to irritate people when you make money off of things you ought'na.

[Blanquepage]

1) there were ads?

2) Every time I see one of the yinzers post "No copyright infringement intended," I roll my eyes because that's a golden flood of boolsh. Obviously they intend to violate the rights of the holder, else why would you upload the episode?

Here's the problem. You don't own the content. Even if the money you're getting is just to break even, it isn't your call to make. I think it is terrific that you're sharing these gems with us, but you seem to irritate people when you make money off of things you ought'na.

Fair enough Travis & Chris. The ads are gone as of now.

--Jamie

[TLEberle]

I didn't even know where they were! I was too focused on the content.

[Vahan_Nisanian]

Every time I see one of the yinzers post "No copyright infringement intended," I roll my eyes because that's a golden flood of boolsh. Obviously they intend to violate the rights of the holder, else why would you upload the episode?

Even when the video does not have a watermark tacked on there by the uploader?

[Blanquepage]

I'm actually having an issue deleting the ad codes, but they'll be gone shortly. The site layout gets screwed up.
That watermarks stay to drive traffic over to the site in case they end up elsewhere.

--Jamie

[TLEberle]

Even when the video does not have a watermark tacked on there by the uploader?

Absolutely. The watermark doesn't enter into it. The problem isn't the watermark, it is that someone is taking something they don't own and displaying it. We nod and wink and ignore that because we get to see some old game shows, and who is materially harmed by us watching an episode of Three on a Match. At least be honest about it, as opposed to what they normally do.

[Blanquepage]

I'll figure out how to fix the layout of the site without the ad codes tomorrow. Each time I delete them, the layout becomes messed up. I've published the backed up version of the site. This isn't to make an extra $1.00, I'm just tired.
Sorry if anyone else found them offensive or irritating.

EDIT 11:51PM: Before retiring to bed, I posted a poll to obtain more input about how those ads make visitors feel. This can easily drag out on the forum, so if anyone wishes send whatever additional negative feedback on them, feel free to email me directly. Any and all is appreciated.

Thanks,

--Jamie

[clemon79]

Sorry if anyone else found them offensive or irritating.

Let me make it clear: I neither found them offensive or irritating, in fact, since my adblocker works, I never even saw then. I don't care what you do about them. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of telling Jimmy that YouTube isn't an option because you can't monetize the content you don't own when clearly you meant that as a technical limitation and not a moral / legal one.

You carry on however you see fit.

[Matt Ottinger]

Jimmy, I don't think anyone here was telling you to remove the ads.  This isn't like before, when people were sending you money and you were having a hard time giving them the product you promised and they paid for.  It's true that the correct response to "I can't make any money off these videos if they're on YouTube" is "You shouldn't be making any money off these videos in the first place", and that remains true regardless of the results of your new poll.  You, more than any other collector here, have a reputation for dragging money into the conversation when it comes to collecting videos, whereas others of us go out of our way to avoid it.  At a time when "videoarchives1000" is becoming a folk hero in these parts by giving away amazingly rare stuff for free, your YouTube explanation comes off as clumsy at best.  

Still, a handful of harmless ads to defray the cost of the website isn't exactly a crime against humanity, and taking them down because a fan or two called you on it really isn't proving anything to anybody.  It's certainly not going to win you any sympathy points.  It's your site and ultimately none of our business what you do with it.  You gain nothing by overreacting to our criticisms.

[Blanquepage]

Not an excuse by any means nor to trivialize anything I typed, but last night was the product of me in front of a computer after overindulging on Absolut Pears with apple juice. Total loss of reason and rationality. I agree Matt that I overreacted to the criticism in removing, or trying to remove, the ads because of 2 pieces of feedback. As far as my reason for maintaining my own site instead of YouTube, even now I really can't articulate my preference well. I guess it's the fulfillment of building a site from scratch on a subject I actually care about, having others enjoy it, and the liberty I have with it that I like so much. Clumsy as it sounds, that's my reason. It just makes me feel happy doing it this way.

Sorry all for making a scene. Won't happen again. I'll be removing that poll when I'm back in front of my home computer too.

In other news, I'll be posting more CBS TJW today, so stick around for that...

[clemon79]

Clumsy as it sounds, that's my reason. It just makes me feel happy doing it this way.

And it's a 100% perfectly legitimate reason, and I am sure that everyone appreciates the efforts you are going to and the content you are sharing as a result. You could have simply said "I don't want Google's paws in my long-form content; I like maintaining control over the whole process" and I don't think anybody would have said boo.

[JakeT]

Clumsy as it sounds, that's my reason. It just makes me feel happy doing it this way.

And it's a 100% perfectly legitimate reason, and I am sure that everyone appreciates the efforts you are going to and the content you are sharing as a result. You could have simply said "I don't want Google's paws in my long-form content; I like maintaining control over the whole process" and I don't think anybody would have said boo.

Well said by both of you!  I just wish I could give ya'll both a cookie!

<totally serious and 100% snark-free>

JakeT

[TLEberle]

At a time when "videoarchives1000" is becoming a folk hero in these parts by giving away amazingly rare stuff for free, your YouTube explanation comes off as clumsy at best.  

A big part of it for me is that he's just there, sometimes he uncorks a gem and that's it. He doesn't do anything else. Nothing extra, just good content.

Clumsy as it sounds, that's my reason. It just makes me feel happy doing it this way.

Hey, that absolutely makes sense. I prefer to curate my own stuff too. The problem is that there's more to the issue than putting up the content.

This reminds me years ago of some guy who was on the receiving end of a CTE letter and got his website shut down. Instead of taking his lumps and realizing where he went wrong, he said "Hey, Lawyer guy, you should shut down THAT site too!" And when we told him what a reprobate turdling he was, he said "Well, fine, to redeem myself I'll donate to his website fund." And he had already lost any credibility he had built up, and he went away.

If you look over the thread, you'll see that I'm first in line to say that I enjoy what you post, because you're able to do something I'm not, and you're so willing to share it with everyone. Just do it for the right reasons.

[PYLdude]

This reminds me years ago of some guy who was on the receiving end of a CTE letter and got his website shut down. Instead of taking his lumps and realizing where he went wrong, he said "Hey, Lawyer guy, you should shut down THAT site too!" And when we told him what a reprobate turdling he was, he said "Well, fine, to redeem myself I'll donate to his website fund." And he had already lost any credibility he had built up, and he went away.

Ah yes, rjsbird's narc-ing on BigJon and FLASHGames. Remembered well.